Discussion:
S6E02 Day of the Moon
(too old to reply)
Agamemnon
2011-04-30 20:55:52 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Good acting all round.

Lots of stuff that doesn't seem to add up which hopefully will be explained
later.

River mentions once again that she's living her life with the Doctor in
reverse, so when did the Doctor give her his supped up sonic screwdriver
which she said he was supposed to have given her during their last time
together, which has to be in the Doctor's past? It can't have been Tennant's
Doctor because she didn't recognise him and thought he looked younger and we
all know he looked the same before he regenerated. If it was Matt Smith's
Doctor then why weren't we shown the moment, and it obviously must have
happened in the Doctor's time line before the story with the Weeping Angels
but the 11th Doctor hasn't seen her before that event.

On top of that the Doctor mentions to River an adventure she's hasn't yet
been on when he's 200 years older so that doesn't add up either if every
time she meets him, he's younger. And how does she end up back in jail for
the Weeping Angels story if she's just escaped from it for this one?

Amy pregnant for 3 months then not pregnant. Is the Time Lord gestation
period 3 months or less? Still doesn't make sense even if the baby is a Time
Lord. She was with Rory for 2 months while the Doctor was away so that makes
5 months, so why didn't anyone notice her bump? Or could the Master be the
father I wonder.

Is the girl River. Both Amy and River have strawberry blonde/red hair.

Why are we given the impression that the Silence has been killed off when we
are told the brought about the moon landings just so they could have a space
suit to put the girl in. And why did they need a space suit when they could
have put all the life support technology in anything they wonted since a
NASA space suit doesn't do anything different from a heated deep sea diving
suit.

How can Rory remember being an Auton unless he is still an Auton?

How can the device the Doctor implanted into Amys hand still be transmitting
her voice after the Silence removed it?

When did Nixon start taping all of his conversations in the Oval Office.
Before or after the Doctor suggests it July 1969?

10/10 for the story so far but it obviously hasn't been completed and I hope
this doesn't end up as another reset.
The Doctor
2011-04-30 21:48:15 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
In article <***@eclipse.net.uk>,
Agamemnon <***@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote:
>Good acting all round.
>
>Lots of stuff that doesn't seem to add up which hopefully will be explained
>later.
>
>River mentions once again that she's living her life with the Doctor in
>reverse, so when did the Doctor give her his supped up sonic screwdriver
>which she said he was supposed to have given her during their last time
>together, which has to be in the Doctor's past? It can't have been Tennant's
>Doctor because she didn't recognise him and thought he looked younger and we
>all know he looked the same before he regenerated. If it was Matt Smith's
>Doctor then why weren't we shown the moment, and it obviously must have
>happened in the Doctor's time line before the story with the Weeping Angels
>but the 11th Doctor hasn't seen her before that event.
>
>On top of that the Doctor mentions to River an adventure she's hasn't yet
>been on when he's 200 years older so that doesn't add up either if every
>time she meets him, he's younger. And how does she end up back in jail for
>the Weeping Angels story if she's just escaped from it for this one?
>
>Amy pregnant for 3 months then not pregnant. Is the Time Lord gestation
>period 3 months or less? Still doesn't make sense even if the baby is a Time
>Lord. She was with Rory for 2 months while the Doctor was away so that makes
>5 months, so why didn't anyone notice her bump? Or could the Master be the
>father I wonder.
>
>Is the girl River. Both Amy and River have strawberry blonde/red hair.
>
>Why are we given the impression that the Silence has been killed off when we
>are told the brought about the moon landings just so they could have a space
>suit to put the girl in. And why did they need a space suit when they could
>have put all the life support technology in anything they wonted since a
>NASA space suit doesn't do anything different from a heated deep sea diving
>suit.
>
>How can Rory remember being an Auton unless he is still an Auton?
>
>How can the device the Doctor implanted into Amys hand still be transmitting
>her voice after the Silence removed it?
>
>When did Nixon start taping all of his conversations in the Oval Office.
>Before or after the Doctor suggests it July 1969?
>
>10/10 for the story so far but it obviously hasn't been completed and I hope
>this doesn't end up as another reset.
>
>
>

I see you say 10/10 overall.
--
Member - Liberal International This is ***@nl2k.ab.ca Ici ***@nl2k.ab.ca
God, Queen and country! Never Satan President Republic! Beware AntiChrist rising!
http://twitter.com/rootnl2k http://www.facebook.com/dyadallee
Stop Stephen Harper ! on 2 May 2011 vote Harper out and Ignatieff in!
solar penguin
2011-04-30 22:12:59 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Agamemnon wrote:

> Lots of stuff that doesn't seem to add up which hopefully will be explained
> later.

Some of it will. The rest of it won't. And even the bits that are
explained, probably still won't make sense. At least that's my
prediction.

> River mentions once again that she's living her life with the Doctor in
> reverse, so when did the Doctor give her his supped up sonic screwdriver
> which she said he was supposed to have given her during their last time
> together, which has to be in the Doctor's past? It can't have been Tennant's
> Doctor because she didn't recognise him and thought he looked younger and we
> all know he looked the same before he regenerated. If it was Matt Smith's
> Doctor then why weren't we shown the moment, and it obviously must have
> happened in the Doctor's time line before the story with the Weeping Angels
> but the 11th Doctor hasn't seen her before that event.

IMHO Moffat hasn't actually thought the implications of River's
timeline through in detail, so that's why it's never going to make any
sense no matter how hard you study it.

>
> How can Rory remember being an Auton unless he is still an Auton?
>

A combination of a time traveller's ability to remember altered
timelines, and an unexpected wibbly-wobbly timey-wimey side effect of
the universe not-quite resetting properly at the end of last season.
(In other words Moffat probably hasn't thought about the implications
of this either!)

> How can the device the Doctor implanted into Amys hand still be transmitting
> her voice after the Silence removed it?

When the Doctor injected it, there was some technobabble that was
probably supposed to explain this. Something to do with telepathy and
cartilage. No, I don't understand it either.
Duggy
2011-05-01 12:19:39 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On May 1, 8:12 am, solar penguin <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> IMHO Moffat hasn't actually thought the implications of River's
> timeline through in detail, so that's why it's never going to make any
> sense no matter how hard you study it.

I think that Moffat has changed his mind from random to backward
meetings... and previous meetings don't tally with the new version.

===
= DUG.
===
john smith
2011-05-01 01:39:22 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
"Agamemnon" <***@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote in message
news:***@eclipse.net.uk...
> Good acting all round.
>
> Lots of stuff that doesn't seem to add up which hopefully will be
> explained later.
>


By which, if it was written by RTD, you'd call bullshit!



> River mentions once again that she's living her life with the Doctor in
> reverse, so when did the Doctor give her his supped up sonic screwdriver
> which she said he was supposed to have given her during their last time
> together, which has to be in the Doctor's past? It can't have been
> Tennant's Doctor because she didn't recognise him and thought he looked
> younger and we all know he looked the same before he regenerated. If it
> was Matt Smith's Doctor then why weren't we shown the moment, and it
> obviously must have happened in the Doctor's time line before the story
> with the Weeping Angels but the 11th Doctor hasn't seen her before that
> event.
>
> On top of that the Doctor mentions to River an adventure she's hasn't yet
> been on when he's 200 years older so that doesn't add up either if every
> time she meets him, he's younger. And how does she end up back in jail for
> the Weeping Angels story if she's just escaped from it for this one?
>
> Amy pregnant for 3 months then not pregnant. Is the Time Lord gestation
> period 3 months or less? Still doesn't make sense even if the baby is a
> Time Lord. She was with Rory for 2 months while the Doctor was away so
> that makes 5 months, so why didn't anyone notice her bump? Or could the
> Master be the father I wonder.
>
> Is the girl River. Both Amy and River have strawberry blonde/red hair.
>
> Why are we given the impression that the Silence has been killed off when
> we are told the brought about the moon landings just so they could have a
> space suit to put the girl in. And why did they need a space suit when
> they could have put all the life support technology in anything they
> wonted since a NASA space suit doesn't do anything different from a heated
> deep sea diving suit.
>
> How can Rory remember being an Auton unless he is still an Auton?
>
> How can the device the Doctor implanted into Amys hand still be
> transmitting her voice after the Silence removed it?
>
> When did Nixon start taping all of his conversations in the Oval Office.
> Before or after the Doctor suggests it July 1969?
>
> 10/10 for the story so far but it obviously hasn't been completed and I
> hope this doesn't end up as another reset.
>
>
>
>
Agamemnon
2011-05-01 01:47:41 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
"john smith" <***@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:ZQ2vp.45377$***@newsfe06.ams2...
>
> "Agamemnon" <***@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote in message
> news:***@eclipse.net.uk...
>> Good acting all round.
>>
>> Lots of stuff that doesn't seem to add up which hopefully will be
>> explained later.
>>
>
>
> By which, if it was written by RTD, you'd call bullshit!
>

No. If RTD had written it 70% would have been soap not substance whereas
with Steve Moffat it's all substance.
Charles E Hardwidge
2011-05-01 05:58:35 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
"Agamemnon" <***@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote in message
news:***@eclipse.net.uk...
>
> No. If RTD had written it 70% would have been soap not substance whereas
> with Steve Moffat it's all substance.

Poison, or dagger?

--
Charles E Hardwidge
The Doctor
2011-05-01 12:46:05 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
In article <ipisoo$tgq$***@dont-email.me>,
Charles E Hardwidge <***@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
>"Agamemnon" <***@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote in message
>news:***@eclipse.net.uk...
>>
>> No. If RTD had written it 70% would have been soap not substance whereas
>> with Steve Moffat it's all substance.
>
>Poison, or dagger?
>
>--
>Charles E Hardwidge

Decide which is RTD.
--
Member - Liberal International This is ***@nl2k.ab.ca Ici ***@nl2k.ab.ca
God, Queen and country! Never Satan President Republic! Beware AntiChrist rising!
http://twitter.com/rootnl2k http://www.facebook.com/dyadallee
Stop Stephen Harper ! on 2 May 2011 vote Harper out and Ignatieff in!
solar penguin
2011-05-01 09:20:01 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Agamemnon wrote:

> If RTD had written it 70% would have been soap not substance whereas
> with Steve Moffat it's all substance.

That "stupid face" business was all soap.

Good soap, but still soap.
john smith
2011-05-01 23:37:36 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
"Agamemnon" <***@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote in message
news:***@eclipse.net.uk...
>
> "john smith" <***@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
> news:ZQ2vp.45377$***@newsfe06.ams2...
>>
>> "Agamemnon" <***@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote in message
>> news:***@eclipse.net.uk...
>>> Good acting all round.
>>>
>>> Lots of stuff that doesn't seem to add up which hopefully will be
>>> explained later.
>>>
>>
>>
>> By which, if it was written by RTD, you'd call bullshit!
>>
>
> No. If RTD had written it 70% would have been soap not substance whereas
> with Steve Moffat it's all substance.
>
>
>
>


Oh happy days! You point out massive plot flaws and give it 10 out of 10.
Still as deluded as ever! LOL!
Charles E Hardwidge
2011-05-02 03:05:36 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
"john smith" <***@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:O8mvp.5271$***@newsfe13.ams2...
> "Agamemnon" <***@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote in message
> news:***@eclipse.net.uk...
>>
>> No. If RTD had written it 70% would have been soap not substance whereas
>> with Steve Moffat it's all substance.
>>
> Oh happy days! You point out massive plot flaws and give it 10 out of 10.
> Still as deluded as ever! LOL!

I doubt Smith could explain the workings of an integrated circuit or the
finer points of fibre optic cable transmission but that doesn't stop him
mouthing off on the internet.

Vanity, vanity. Everything is vanity...

--
Charles E Hardwidge
solar penguin
2011-05-02 09:13:05 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Charles E Hardwidge wrote:

> "john smith" <***@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
> news:O8mvp.5271$***@newsfe13.ams2...
> > "Agamemnon" <***@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote in message
> > news:***@eclipse.net.uk...
> >>
> >> No. If RTD had written it 70% would have been soap not substance whereas
> >> with Steve Moffat it's all substance.
> >>
> > Oh happy days! You point out massive plot flaws and give it 10 out of 10.
> > Still as deluded as ever! LOL!
>
> I doubt Smith could explain the workings of an integrated circuit or the
> finer points of fibre optic cable transmission but that doesn't stop him
> mouthing off on the internet.
>
> Vanity, vanity. Everything is vanity...
>

I've not been following behind-the-scenes news closely. When has Matt
Smith been mouthing off on the internet about integrated circuits and
fibre optic cable transmission? More importantly, why has he been
doing it?
Charles E Hardwidge
2011-05-02 09:43:55 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
"solar penguin" <***@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:ece015ed-5cef-4ece-b287-***@k25g2000yqf.googlegroups.com...
> Charles E Hardwidge wrote:
>> "john smith" <***@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
>> news:O8mvp.5271$***@newsfe13.ams2...
>> > "Agamemnon" <***@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote in message
>> > news:***@eclipse.net.uk...

>> >> No. If RTD had written it 70% would have been soap not substance
>> >> whereas
>> >> with Steve Moffat it's all substance.
>> >>
>> > Oh happy days! You point out massive plot flaws and give it 10 out of
>> > 10. Still as deluded as ever! LOL!
>>
>> I doubt Smith could explain the workings of an integrated circuit or the
>> finer points of fibre optic cable transmission but that doesn't stop him
>> mouthing off on the internet.
>>
>> Vanity, vanity. Everything is vanity...
>
> I've not been following behind-the-scenes news closely. When has Matt
> Smith been mouthing off on the internet about integrated circuits and
> fibre optic cable transmission? More importantly, why has he been
> doing it?

I was talking about Mr Personality Disorder but if Matt Smith has been doing
it as well...

You have to be careful. That's how rumours start.

--
Charles E Hardwidge
The Doctor
2011-05-02 13:17:49 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
In article <iplucg$q1j$***@dont-email.me>,
Charles E Hardwidge <***@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>"solar penguin" <***@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:ece015ed-5cef-4ece-b287-***@k25g2000yqf.googlegroups.com...
>> Charles E Hardwidge wrote:
>>> "john smith" <***@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
>>> news:O8mvp.5271$***@newsfe13.ams2...
>>> > "Agamemnon" <***@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote in message
>>> > news:***@eclipse.net.uk...
>
>>> >> No. If RTD had written it 70% would have been soap not substance
>>> >> whereas
>>> >> with Steve Moffat it's all substance.
>>> >>
>>> > Oh happy days! You point out massive plot flaws and give it 10 out of
>>> > 10. Still as deluded as ever! LOL!
>>>
>>> I doubt Smith could explain the workings of an integrated circuit or the
>>> finer points of fibre optic cable transmission but that doesn't stop him
>>> mouthing off on the internet.
>>>
>>> Vanity, vanity. Everything is vanity...
>>
>> I've not been following behind-the-scenes news closely. When has Matt
>> Smith been mouthing off on the internet about integrated circuits and
>> fibre optic cable transmission? More importantly, why has he been
>> doing it?
>
>I was talking about Mr Personality Disorder but if Matt Smith has been doing
>it as well...
>
>You have to be careful. That's how rumours start.
>
>--
>Charles E Hardwidge
>

Then be careful what you post.
--
Member - Liberal International This is ***@nl2k.ab.ca Ici ***@nl2k.ab.ca
God, Queen and country! Never Satan President Republic! Beware AntiChrist rising!
http://twitter.com/rootnl2k http://www.facebook.com/dyadallee
Stop Stephen Harper ! on 2 May 2011 vote !
The Doctor
2011-05-02 13:10:08 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
In article <ipl721$i1k$***@dont-email.me>,
Charles E Hardwidge <***@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>"john smith" <***@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
>news:O8mvp.5271$***@newsfe13.ams2...
>> "Agamemnon" <***@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote in message
>> news:***@eclipse.net.uk...
>>>
>>> No. If RTD had written it 70% would have been soap not substance whereas
>>> with Steve Moffat it's all substance.
>>>
>> Oh happy days! You point out massive plot flaws and give it 10 out of 10.
>> Still as deluded as ever! LOL!
>
>I doubt Smith could explain the workings of an integrated circuit or the
>finer points of fibre optic cable transmission but that doesn't stop him
>mouthing off on the internet.
>
>Vanity, vanity. Everything is vanity...
>
>--
>Charles E Hardwidge
>

Said Vain Charles.
--
Member - Liberal International This is ***@nl2k.ab.ca Ici ***@nl2k.ab.ca
God, Queen and country! Never Satan President Republic! Beware AntiChrist rising!
http://twitter.com/rootnl2k http://www.facebook.com/dyadallee
Stop Stephen Harper ! on 2 May 2011 vote !
Stephen Wilson
2011-05-02 20:16:25 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
"john smith" <***@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:O8mvp.5271$***@newsfe13.ams2...
>>
>> No. If RTD had written it 70% would have been soap not substance whereas
>> with Steve Moffat it's all substance.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> Oh happy days! You point out massive plot flaws and give it 10 out of 10.
> Still as deluded as ever! LOL!

Oh yeah. A flimsy plot with aliens that make no sense, loads of soap and gay
references. But Moffatt wrote it so that makes it OK...
James Kuyper
2011-05-01 02:37:24 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 04/30/2011 04:55 PM, Agamemnon wrote:
...
> Amy pregnant for 3 months then not pregnant. Is the Time Lord gestation
> period 3 months or less? Still doesn't make sense even if the baby is a Time
> Lord. She was with Rory for 2 months while the Doctor was away so that makes
> 5 months, so why didn't anyone notice her bump? Or could the Master be the
> father I wonder.

I took the final sequence as implying that Amy is currently in
Schroedinger's cat-like superposition of two states, one in which she's
pregnant, and in the other, she's not. I think that the birth may still
in the future along her personal time line. However, it only said
"positive" / "negative" - it might have been testing for something other
than pregnancy.

> Is the girl River. Both Amy and River have strawberry blonde/red hair.

The renewed series is starting to have a serious surplus of women
connected to the doctor with mysterious pasts or futures: Jenny, River
Song, Amy, the girl in the space suit, and Amy's daughter. I think it's
safe to assume that the last two are the same person, given the location
where Amy found the picture. However, I suspect that at least two more
of those women are going to be discovered to be the same person, before
this is over; it's quite possible that they're all the same person
(making Amy her own mother would be the trickiest, but not impossible
once you've got time travel involved).

...
> How can Rory remember being an Auton unless he is still an Auton?

What happened to the four people whose lives had not yet been completely
erased at the time of Big Bang II is very thoroughly anomalous, for
every single one of them. You'll have to admit, however, that that was a
highly anomalous position for them to be in. In the simplest of
possibilities, the world would have been recreated, complete, with
everyone but the Doctor restored to their proper places with no memory
of the prior universe. What actually happened was a lot more complicated.
--
James Kuyper
Ross
2011-05-01 04:23:39 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Apr 30, 10:37 pm, James Kuyper <***@verizon.net> wrote:
> On 04/30/2011 04:55 PM, Agamemnon wrote:
> ...
>
> > Amy pregnant for 3 months then not pregnant. Is the Time Lord gestation
> > period 3 months or less? Still doesn't make sense even if the baby is a Time
> > Lord. She was with Rory for 2 months while the Doctor was away so that makes
> > 5 months, so why didn't anyone notice her bump? Or could the Master be the
> > father I wonder.
>
> I took the final sequence as implying that Amy is currently in
> Schroedinger's cat-like superposition of two states, one in which she's
> pregnant, and in the other, she's not. I think that the birth may still
> in the future along her personal time line. However, it only said
> "positive" / "negative" - it might have been testing for something other
> than pregnancy.
>

It does *say* Pregnancy on the left in the white bubble. "Amelia
Pond / Full Body Scan in Progress / PREGNANCY" (The rest of the window
is gibberish in small print.) I guess that's not 100% proof, but it's
as close as anything.
James Kuyper
2011-05-01 10:16:33 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 05/01/2011 12:23 AM, Ross wrote:
> On Apr 30, 10:37�pm, James Kuyper <***@verizon.net> wrote:
>> On 04/30/2011 04:55 PM, Agamemnon wrote:
>> ...
>>
>>> Amy pregnant for 3 months then not pregnant. Is the Time Lord gestation
>>> period 3 months or less? Still doesn't make sense even if the baby is a Time
>>> Lord. She was with Rory for 2 months while the Doctor was away so that makes
>>> 5 months, so why didn't anyone notice her bump? Or could the Master be the
>>> father I wonder.
>>
>> I took the final sequence as implying that Amy is currently in
>> Schroedinger's cat-like superposition of two states, one in which she's
>> pregnant, and in the other, she's not. I think that the birth may still
>> in the future along her personal time line. However, it only said
>> "positive" / "negative" - it might have been testing for something other
>> than pregnancy.
>>
>
> It does *say* Pregnancy on the left in the white bubble. "Amelia
> Pond / Full Body Scan in Progress / PREGNANCY" (The rest of the window
> is gibberish in small print.) I guess that's not 100% proof, but it's
> as close as anything.

I missed that - it flashed by too quickly for me to notice.

--
James Kuyper
Tim Bruening
2017-05-06 21:36:07 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Amy had told the Doctor of her possible pregnancy because she was worried that being conceived on the TARDIS might cause the baby to have three heads or a Time Head.
James Kuyper
2011-05-01 10:27:35 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 04/30/2011 10:37 PM, James Kuyper wrote:
> On 04/30/2011 04:55 PM, Agamemnon wrote:
...
>> Is the girl River. Both Amy and River have strawberry blonde/red hair.
>
> The renewed series is starting to have a serious surplus of women
> connected to the doctor with mysterious pasts or futures: Jenny, River
> Song, Amy, the girl in the space suit, and Amy's daughter. I think it's
> safe to assume that the last two are the same person, given the location
> where Amy found the picture. However, I suspect that at least two more
> of those women are going to be discovered to be the same person, before
> this is over; it's quite possible that they're all the same person
> (making Amy her own mother would be the trickiest, but not impossible
> once you've got time travel involved).

Re-reading that after a good night's sleep, I think I went a little too
far with my speculation there.
We know how Jenny came into existence; it's inconsistent with her being
Amy's daughter.
Jenny is genetically Gallifryean, and the girl who was in the spacesuit
also apparently has at least some Gallifryean ancestry. But if either
Amy or Song had Gallifryean physiology, the Doctor should have noticed
and should have commented on the fact, by now.
The adult actresses involved are sufficiently different in appearance
that connecting any two of them would seem to call for Gallifryean
regeneration.
There's still too many bizarre possibilities open, however.

--
James Kuyper
Duggy
2011-05-01 12:30:39 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On May 1, 8:27 pm, James Kuyper <***@verizon.net> wrote:
> Jenny is genetically Gallifryean, and the girl who was in the spacesuit
> also apparently has at least some Gallifryean ancestry.

No, we know she can regenerate. And we know that the Timelords gained
that power at some point.

Could the child be a human who gains it?

===
= DUG.
===
Ryan P.
2011-05-01 23:03:09 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 5/1/2011 7:30 AM, Duggy wrote:
> On May 1, 8:27 pm, James Kuyper<***@verizon.net> wrote:
>> Jenny is genetically Gallifryean, and the girl who was in the spacesuit
>> also apparently has at least some Gallifryean ancestry.
>
> No, we know she can regenerate. And we know that the Timelords gained
> that power at some point.
>
> Could the child be a human who gains it?

Or, could Amy have been correct in her fears about the effects of time
travel on her baby? Maybe there is something about the vortex that
effected the baby, and basically gave it the same powers as the Time Lords?


Maybe... that's how the Time Lords got the power in the first place?
Happily "normal" aliens, until one day, a few mothers-to-be were exposed
to a time vortex?
Duggy
2011-05-01 23:51:02 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On May 2, 9:03 am, "Ryan P." <***@wi.rr.comm> wrote:
> On 5/1/2011 7:30 AM,Duggywrote:
>
> > On May 1, 8:27 pm, James Kuyper<***@verizon.net>  wrote:
> >> Jenny is genetically Gallifryean, and the girl who was in the spacesuit
> >> also apparently has at least some Gallifryean ancestry.
>
> > No, we know she can regenerate.  And we know that the Timelords gained
> > that power at some point.
>
> > Could the child be a human who gains it?

>   Or, could Amy have been correct in her fears about the effects of time
> travel on her baby?  Maybe there is something about the vortex that
> effected the baby, and basically gave it the same powers as the Time Lords?

That's what I'm saying.

>   Maybe... that's how the Time Lords got the power in the first place?
> Happily "normal" aliens, until one day, a few mothers-to-be were exposed
> to a time vortex?

Is there a canon explanation?

===
= DUG.
===
James Kuyper
2011-05-02 00:10:16 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 05/01/2011 07:51 PM, Duggy wrote:
> On May 2, 9:03�am, "Ryan P." <***@wi.rr.comm> wrote:
>> On 5/1/2011 7:30 AM,Duggywrote:
>>
>>> On May 1, 8:27 pm, James Kuyper<***@verizon.net> �wrote:
>>>> Jenny is genetically Gallifryean, and the girl who was in the spacesuit
>>>> also apparently has at least some Gallifryean ancestry.
>>
>>> No, we know she can regenerate. �And we know that the Timelords gained
>>> that power at some point.
...
> Is there a canon explanation?

No, but there are several non-canonical ones. See:
<http://tardis.wikia.com/wiki/Regeneration>.
--
James Kuyper
The Doctor
2011-05-02 00:36:01 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
In article <3987fc21-db20-4b15-9476-***@f31g2000pri.googlegroups.com>,
Duggy <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>On May 2, 9:03=A0am, "Ryan P." <***@wi.rr.comm> wrote:
>> On 5/1/2011 7:30 AM,Duggywrote:
>>
>> > On May 1, 8:27 pm, James Kuyper<***@verizon.net> =A0wrote:
>> >> Jenny is genetically Gallifryean, and the girl who was in the spacesui=
>t
>> >> also apparently has at least some Gallifryean ancestry.
>>
>> > No, we know she can regenerate. =A0And we know that the Timelords gaine=
>d
>> > that power at some point.
>>
>> > Could the child be a human who gains it?
>
>> =A0 Or, could Amy have been correct in her fears about the effects of tim=
>e
>> travel on her baby? =A0Maybe there is something about the vortex that
>> effected the baby, and basically gave it the same powers as the Time Lord=
>s?
>
>That's what I'm saying.
>
>> =A0 Maybe... that's how the Time Lords got the power in the first place?
>> Happily "normal" aliens, until one day, a few mothers-to-be were exposed
>> to a time vortex?
>
>Is there a canon explanation?
>
>=3D=3D=3D
>=3D DUG.
>=3D=3D=3D

Darned if I know.
--
Member - Liberal International This is ***@nl2k.ab.ca Ici ***@nl2k.ab.ca
God, Queen and country! Never Satan President Republic! Beware AntiChrist rising!
http://twitter.com/rootnl2k http://www.facebook.com/dyadallee
Stop Stephen Harper ! on 2 May 2011 vote Harper out and Ignatieff in!
China Blue Veins
2011-05-02 02:01:26 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
In article <3987fc21-db20-4b15-9476-***@f31g2000pri.googlegroups.com>,
Duggy <***@gmail.com> wrote:

> On May 2, 9:03 am, "Ryan P." <***@wi.rr.comm> wrote:
> > On 5/1/2011 7:30 AM,Duggywrote:
> >
> > > On May 1, 8:27 pm, James Kuyper<***@verizon.net>  wrote:
> > >> Jenny is genetically Gallifryean, and the girl who was in the spacesuit
> > >> also apparently has at least some Gallifryean ancestry.
> >
> > > No, we know she can regenerate.  And we know that the Timelords gained
> > > that power at some point.
> >
> > > Could the child be a human who gains it?
>
> >   Or, could Amy have been correct in her fears about the effects of time
> > travel on her baby?  Maybe there is something about the vortex that
> > effected the baby, and basically gave it the same powers as the Time Lords?
>
> That's what I'm saying.
>
> >   Maybe... that's how the Time Lords got the power in the first place?
> > Happily "normal" aliens, until one day, a few mothers-to-be were exposed
> > to a time vortex?
>
> Is there a canon explanation?

There was something about making Gallifreyean children stare into the vortex.
That might have differentiated them into Timelads (-lasses) and the rest of the
Gallireyeans.

--
Damn the living - It's a lovely life. I'm whoever you want me to be.
Silver silverware - Where is the love? At least I can stay in character.
Oval swimming pool - Where is the love? Annoying Usenet one post at a time.
Damn the living - It's a lovely life. Why does Harmony have blue veins?
pippa.moran
2011-05-01 12:05:07 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
James Kuyper wrote:

> On 04/30/2011 04:55 PM, Agamemnon wrote:
> ...
> > Amy pregnant for 3 months then not pregnant. Is the Time Lord gestation
> > period 3 months or less? Still doesn't make sense even if the baby is a Time
> > Lord. She was with Rory for 2 months while the Doctor was away so that makes
> > 5 months, so why didn't anyone notice her bump? Or could the Master be the
> > father I wonder.
>
> I took the final sequence as implying that Amy is currently in
> Schroedinger's cat-like superposition of two states, one in which she's
> pregnant, and in the other, she's not.

Probably not a good idea to mention cats and pregnancy together when
replying to Aggy...
China Blue Veins
2011-05-01 03:52:24 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
In article <***@eclipse.net.uk>,
"Agamemnon" <***@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote:

> Amy pregnant for 3 months then not pregnant. Is the Time Lord gestation
> period 3 months or less? Still doesn't make sense even if the baby is a Time
> Lord. She was with Rory for 2 months while the Doctor was away so that makes
> 5 months, so why didn't anyone notice her bump? Or could the Master be the
> father I wonder.

Did Time-ladies have wombs?

> suit to put the girl in. And why did they need a space suit when they could
> have put all the life support technology in anything they wonted since a
> NASA space suit doesn't do anything different from a heated deep sea diving
> suit.

Diving suits of that era didn't have a pressure difference across the suit,
which is where most of the bulk and mechanics of a space suit are. Also they're
cooled not heated.

> How can Rory remember being an Auton unless he is still an Auton?

Rory and Amy retained partial memories from before the rebooted universe even
though the reboot reconstructed their human bodies

--
Damn the living - It's a lovely life. I'm whoever you want me to be.
Silver silverware - Where is the love? At least I can stay in character.
Oval swimming pool - Where is the love? Annoying Usenet one post at a time.
Damn the living - It's a lovely life. Why does Harmony have blue veins?
Ross
2011-05-01 04:19:10 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Apr 30, 4:55 pm, "Agamemnon" <***@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote:
> Good acting all round.
>
> Lots of stuff that doesn't seem to add up which hopefully will be explained
> later.
>
> River mentions once again that she's living her life with the Doctor in
> reverse, so when did the Doctor give her his supped up sonic screwdriver
> which she said he was supposed to have given her during their last time
> together, which has to be in the Doctor's past? It can't have been Tennant's
> Doctor because she didn't recognise him and thought he looked younger and we
> all know he looked the same before he regenerated. If it was Matt Smith's
> Doctor then why weren't we shown the moment, and it obviously must have
> happened in the Doctor's time line before the story with the Weeping Angels
> but the 11th Doctor hasn't seen her before that event.
>

I'd been assuming all along that it's the tenth doctor who gives river
the Sonic. I assume it happened between the third and fourth special.
River *does* recognize him, nothing she says even HINTS otherwise (In
fact, at the time, one of the things people kept harping on was that
River *recognizes him on sight*), but she *does* note that he looks
much "younger". Also, of course, the sonic he gives River is clearly
based on the tenth doctor's sonic: its settings are red and blue,
without a hint of green.

No, I think that far and a way the most straightforward explanation is
that during the missing time between the third and fourth special, the
Doctor is feeling melancholy over his impending death, and so he goes
to someone who he knows has seen what's next: he visits River. He's
haggard from the loss of Donna from warning of his impending death,
and from his recent brush with the dark side as the "Time Lord
Triumphant". This is why River considers him older than in Silence in
the Library: in the library, she sees a face he recognises, but she
sees him before he's had his spirit crushed by the events of Journey's
End and Waters of Mars. And, of course, he already knows what's going
to happen to happen to River, so he gives her his newly built two-tone
sonic -- one which he just recently built for this purpose, though
while building it, it occurs to him that if he just switched it to
green, he could get the best of both worlds without having to keep
switching back and forth between red and blue.

> On top of that the Doctor mentions to River an adventure she's hasn't yet
> been on when he's 200 years older so that doesn't add up either if every
> time she meets him, he's younger. And how does she end up back in jail for
> the Weeping Angels story if she's just escaped from it for this one?

I payed close attention to this scene. I don't think the Doctor
actually mentions any adventures she *has* been on. He "remembers"
things that she asks about, but doesn't volunteer any. Which leaves
open the possibility that the future-doctor is lying -- we know he's
misleading all of them in this scene.

>
> Amy pregnant for 3 months then not pregnant. Is the Time Lord gestation
> period 3 months or less? Still doesn't make sense even if the baby is a Time
> Lord. She was with Rory for 2 months while the Doctor was away so that makes
> 5 months, so why didn't anyone notice her bump? Or could the Master be the
> father I wonder.

The pictures demonstrate that Amy's had her memory manipulated. Given
that Moffat is the first showrunner who likes to use Time Travel as a
story element rather than just a mechanism to deliver the characters
to the plot, it wouldn't surprise me if Future-Doctor or the Silence
whisked Amy off somewhere during the "Three Months Later" bit.

Also, there's no reason to think Amy's five months pregnant at all. If
she'd been two months pregnant at the beginning of the episode, she
would be past the point of just *thinking* she was pregnant. She'd be
at the stage where you start seeing an obstetrician. Even Amy
wouldn't wait *two months* before telling Rory. No, it only makes
sense if we assume that she's no more than a few days late at the
time. Which means that she's no more than three and a half months
pregnant at the end of the episode if she actually lived through just
those three months.

But of course, now Amy's in some kind of quantum superposition where
she's both pregnant and not pregnant. And I think I just worked out
why... (I'll get to that in a minute)

>
> How can Rory remember being an Auton unless he is still an Auton?

How could Rory remember dying in the Silurian base unless he was still
a human? When the Doctor created the new universe with the Pandorica,
it was created based on the old universe as recorded in the pandorica.
The Rory who is created in the new universe is based on the old Rory.
So even though he's human, and lived his normal life, and never even
met the Doctor until his wedding day, he, like everything else, was
created by extrapolating from a universe which contained a Rory who
traveled with the Doctor, and who died in the near future, and who was
a plastic centurion in roman-occupied Britton.


But all that leads me to my Grand Unified Theory.

See, I've been working for some time on a story about time travel, and
it's got me all thinking about possible ways causality could work in
the face of the possibility of changing history And I applied that to
what we've seen, and here's what I got...

We can conclude from the events of The Lodger that the Silence is
trying to develop TARDIS-like technology. I believe that the Silence
are trying to, essentially, elevate themselves to the position once
held by the Time Lords (the Kryllitane had similar ideas). And I'm
going to guess that part of their plan involves trying to *create* a
time lord for themselves.

Now, we know that the Silence had something to do with last season's
destruction of the universe (THough I've always been partial to the
idea that we've been misled, and the destruction of the universe was
actually orchestrated by *enemies* of the Silence, attemtping a
"scorched earth" policy. They don't say "Silence will win", but rather
"Silence will *fall*". As Rory said,
"Rome fell." But anyway...). I suggest that the actual goal of the
destruction of the universe *was Amy Pond*. That crack in her bedroom,
her travels with the Doctor, her ability to affect the recreation of
the universe, I suggest that all of this was engineered as part of
some process (which we haven't seen come to fruition yet), which will
eventually lead Amy to give birth to a Time Lord baby.

Hang on, because here's where it gets *really* complicated.

Thanks to the intervention of the Silence, Amy gives birth to a Time
Lord baby. I'm going to guess that this baby is born in the year most
overwhelmingly appropriate: 1963. The Silence steal the child to
control its development, eventually forcing it into that space suit,
to protect it or perhaps to contain it.

But, of course, this past episode makes everything go pear-shaped: the
domination of earth by the Silence is interrupted in 1969 thanks to
the Doctor's intervention. So by 2011, they're no longer in any
position to manipulate Amy's destiny.

And as a result, there's now a paradox going on in Amy's uterus. If
the Silence wins and maintains control, Amy is pregnant with a time
lord baby. But if they're defeated in the 70s, then she's not. But if
she's not, then there's no child to be in the space suit. And no calls
to Nixon. And therefore no Doctor discovering the Silence. And
therefore no embedded hypnotic suggestion in the moon landing footage.
And therefore the Silence maintains control. And gets Amy pregnant
with the spawn-of-time.

And so the result is that Amy's now carrying Schroedinger's Baby: she
is, as the TARDIS reports, both pregnant and not-pregnant at the same
time.

So who shot the Doctor? Well, one way things can turn out is that the
Doctor defeats the Silence. But, of course, if the Doctor hadn't
summoned Rory. Amy, River, Carlton and himself to Utah to die at them,
they'd never have gone back to 1969 and started their war against the
Silence. So the Doctor knows he has to sacrifice himself. So I
suggest that he set the whole thing up. I won;t hazard a guess who
actually pulled the trigger. Could be the Doctor himself, crossing his
own time-stream. Could be River, though that seems sort of strange
(Why would River be in a 51st century prison for a 21st century
crime?).

ANyway, just some fun speculation. I'd be surprised if what happens
follows closely to what i've said, but I'd also be surprised if they
don't hit one or two similar points.
Fred
2011-05-01 04:43:04 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Apr 30, 8:19 pm, Ross <***@trenchcoatsoft.com> wrote:

> Hang on, because here's where it gets *really* complicated.
>
> Thanks to the intervention of the Silence, Amy gives birth to a Time
> Lord baby. I'm going to guess that this baby is born in the year most
> overwhelmingly appropriate: 1963. The Silence steal the child to
> control its development, eventually forcing it into that space suit,
> to protect it or perhaps to contain it.
>

BTW Alex Kingston was born in 1963.
Charles E Hardwidge
2011-05-01 05:58:31 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
"Ross" <***@trenchcoatsoft.com> wrote in message
news:38325663-9998-46eb-a745-***@x18g2000yqe.googlegroups.com...

> ANyway, just some fun speculation. I'd be surprised if what happens
> follows closely to what i've said, but I'd also be surprised if they
> don't hit one or two similar points.

As plausible as anything. I don't bother with that shit but it's something
to read.

The time travel thing is a bit overdone. Yes, the Doctor has a TARDIS. We
know.

--
Charles E Hardwidge
The Doctor
2011-05-01 12:45:42 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
In article <ipisok$tgh$***@dont-email.me>,
Charles E Hardwidge <***@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>"Ross" <***@trenchcoatsoft.com> wrote in message
>news:38325663-9998-46eb-a745-***@x18g2000yqe.googlegroups.com...
>
>> ANyway, just some fun speculation. I'd be surprised if what happens
>> follows closely to what i've said, but I'd also be surprised if they
>> don't hit one or two similar points.
>
>As plausible as anything. I don't bother with that but it's something
>to read.
>
>The time travel thing is a bit overdone. Yes, the Doctor has a TARDIS. We
>know.
>
>--
>Charles E Hardwidge

Remnd me one day to tell you why the USA did not develop an SST.
--
Member - Liberal International This is ***@nl2k.ab.ca Ici ***@nl2k.ab.ca
God, Queen and country! Never Satan President Republic! Beware AntiChrist rising!
http://twitter.com/rootnl2k http://www.facebook.com/dyadallee
Stop Stephen Harper ! on 2 May 2011 vote Harper out and Ignatieff in!
Duggy
2011-05-01 12:28:23 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On May 1, 2:19 pm, Ross <***@trenchcoatsoft.com> wrote:
> I'd been assuming all along that it's the tenth doctor who gives river
> the Sonic. I assume it happened between the third and fourth special.

Nah, he's too adventurous then, they'd have had a fling. During his
dying travels when he would have been in the mood to say goodbye.

> River *does* recognize him, nothing she says even HINTS otherwise (In
> fact, at the time, one of the things people kept harping on was that
> River *recognizes him on sight*), but she *does* note that he looks
> much "younger".

Of course they try to cover that in her second appearance by saying
she knows how to recognise him in any body.

>  Also, of course, the sonic he gives River is clearly
> based on the tenth doctor's sonic: its settings are red and blue,
> without a hint of green.

True.

> No, I think that far and a way the most straightforward explanation is
> that during the missing time between the third and fourth special, the
> Doctor is feeling melancholy over his impending death, and so he goes
> to someone who he knows has seen what's next: he visits River.

At that point he was trying to live, not preparing for death.

> I payed close attention  to this scene. I don't think the Doctor
> actually mentions any adventures she *has* been on.  He "remembers"
> things that she asks about, but doesn't volunteer any. Which leaves
> open the possibility that the future-doctor is lying -- we know he's
> misleading all of them in this scene.

Interesting.

> Thanks to the intervention of the Silence, Amy gives birth to a Time
> Lord baby. I'm going to guess that this baby is born in the year most
> overwhelmingly appropriate: 1963. The Silence steal the child to
> control its development, eventually forcing it into that space suit,
> to protect it or perhaps to contain it.

Unless someone else develops the suit to protect her from the Silents.

> So who shot the Doctor?

River Song with her green energy gun.

===
= DUG.
===
Ross
2011-05-01 15:07:47 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On May 1, 8:28 am, Duggy <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 1, 2:19 pm, Ross <***@trenchcoatsoft.com> wrote:
>
> > I'd been assuming all along that it's the tenth doctor who gives river
> > the Sonic. I assume it happened between the third and fourth special.
>
> Nah, he's too adventurous then, they'd have had a fling.  During his
> dying travels when he would have been in the mood to say goodbye.
>

That's a good point. The idea of him going back at the end of the
Special Season had fixed in my mind before the Sarah Jane Adventures
episode where he reveals that those travels had included *all* of his
previous companions. In light of that, and in light of the fact that
what we *did* see was him going on a little crusade helping a bunch of
them out, I could easily believe that it was during his dying travels
that he decided to do the second half of "saving" River.

Also, I neglected to mention, another part of why I think he did this
some time during the Specials is that when River reacts to Donna with
the whole "I'm so sorry" bit, that seems to suggest that The Doctor
told her about Donna while the pain was still fresh for him.

> Of course they try to cover that in her second appearance by saying
> she knows how to recognise him in any body.

Yeah, but even accepting that she would recognize him in any body, it
seems like if she sees him in a body she hasn't seen before, she'd
recognize him, but also instantly know whereabouts in his own life he
was.


> > No, I think that far and a way the most straightforward explanation is
> > that during the missing time between the third and fourth special, the
> > Doctor is feeling melancholy over his impending death, and so he goes
> > to someone who he knows has seen what's next: he visits River.
>
> At that point he was trying to live, not preparing for death.

By the end of it, sort-of, but the whole thing had very much the feel
of the Doctor going through a sort of bipolar episode. At the end of
Waters of Mars, he's very sad and broken, and at the beginning of End
of Time, he's moved on to a kind of manic denial.

> > Thanks to the intervention of the Silence, Amy gives birth to a Time
> > Lord baby. I'm going to guess that this baby is born in the year most
> > overwhelmingly appropriate: 1963. The Silence steal the child to
> > control its development, eventually forcing it into that space suit,
> > to protect it or perhaps to contain it.
>
> Unless someone else develops the suit to protect her from the Silents.

I don't see any evidence of that. Interesting twist if it happened.


>
> River Song with her green energy gun.

I will note that the green energy gun blast looked a lot like the
weapons the Silence were firing in the last fight scene.

Also...

The Silent who confronts Amy in the White House tells her that she
must tell the doctor the thing he can not know. The show wanted to
imply this had to do with his impending death. But here I have two
concerns: first, how would they know? there's no evidence that the
Silence have succeeded at Time Travel yet (though we know they're
pursuing it). And if they did have that foreknowledge, it seems like
they must be much more capable than this episode implies, so how were
they so easily beaten?

Secondly, Amy *doesn't* tell the Doctor of his impending death. The
whole climax hinges on the fact that the Silence's power of suggestion
always works -- even our heroes aren't immune to it. If that's the
case, how did Amy resist?

It makes me think that maybe she *did* do what they said, and the
thing the Silent wanted her to tell the Doctor was actually about her
pregnancy.

In fact, maybe my theory is slightly backwards. Perhaps, like last
season, the Doctor is getting played like a fiddle. Amy *wasn't*
pregnant to begin with, and the Silence *put the idea in her head that
she was pregnant, and that she wanted to tell the Doctor before she
told Rory*. And then when they kidnapped her later, it wasn't to use
as a hostage, but rather to do something medical to her that would
cause her to end up with Schroedinger's baby, with the idea that this
would get the Doctor involved in some way that would lead to their end
goal of Amy having a time-headed baby
Duggy
2011-05-01 23:49:39 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On May 2, 1:07 am, Ross <***@trenchcoatsoft.com> wrote:
> Also, I neglected to mention, another part of why I think he did this
> some time during the Specials is that when River reacts to Donna with
> the whole "I'm so sorry" bit, that seems to suggest that The Doctor
> told her about Donna while the pain was still fresh for him.

Good point.

> > Of course they try to cover that in her second appearance by saying
> > she knows how to recognise him in any body.
> Yeah, but even accepting that she would recognize him in any body, it
> seems like if she sees him in a body she hasn't seen before, she'd
> recognize him, but also instantly know whereabouts in his own life he
> was.

Agreed. I didn't say it worked, I said they tried it.

> > Unless someone else develops the suit to protect her from the Silents.
> I don't see any evidence of that. Interesting twist if it happened.

Thing is sometimes when the characters make guesses we take them as
facts - the writer explaining stuff.

Sometime the writer is planting red herrings.

Could be the Silents made it for her. Could be someone else.

> > River Song with her green energy gun.
> I will note that the green energy gun blast looked a lot like the
> weapons the Silence were firing in the last fight scene.

I thought they were using lightning.

> Also...


> It makes me think that maybe she *did* do what they said, and the
> thing the Silent wanted her to tell the Doctor was actually about her
> pregnancy.

Agreed.

===
= DUG.
===
Duggy
2011-05-01 12:18:10 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On May 1, 6:55 am, "Agamemnon" <***@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote:
> Good acting all round.

> Lots of stuff that doesn't seem to add up which hopefully will be explained
> later.

I'm sure some will.

> River mentions once again that she's living her life with the Doctor in
> reverse,

I know. This is new and sucks.

> so when did the Doctor give her his supped up sonic screwdriver
> which she said he was supposed to have given her during their last time
> together, which has to be in the Doctor's past? It can't have been Tennant's
> Doctor because she didn't recognise him

Yes, she did.

> On top of that the Doctor mentions to River an adventure she's hasn't yet
> been on when he's 200 years older so that doesn't add up either if every
> time she meets him, he's younger.

That's because there were 2 Doctors in this time period. The Doctor
she was synced with was ours, not the older one.

Doesn't explain the need for the diary any other time than that,
though.

> And how does she end up back in jail for
> the Weeping Angels story if she's just escaped from it for this one?

The Doctor took her back (at her request) at the end of the episode.

> Amy pregnant for 3 months then not pregnant. Is the Time Lord gestation
> period 3 months or less?

The TARDIS test clearly showed that she was in flux between being
pregnant and not being pregnant.

> Still doesn't make sense even if the baby is a Time
> Lord.

I think she's going to absorb the Eye of Harmony or something and turn
the baby into a Timelord.

> She was with Rory for 2 months while the Doctor was away so that makes
> 5 months, so why didn't anyone notice her bump? Or could the Master be the
> father I wonder.

Why are you adding these numbers together?

> Is the girl River. Both Amy and River have strawberry blonde/red hair.

I doubt it.

> Why are we given the impression that the Silence has been killed off when we
> are told the brought about the moon landings just so they could have a space
> suit to put the girl in.

That was what the Doctor believed.

> And why did they need a space suit when they could
> have put all the life support technology in anything they wonted since a
> NASA space suit doesn't do anything different from a heated deep sea diving
> suit.

True. Any they made humans develop the tech they needed. The suit
was all kinds of alien tech. The sort of thing the Doctor or River
Song might make.

> How can Rory remember being an Auton unless he is still an Auton?

Because the universe was recreated from Amy's wish. She remembered
him (and loved him for) being an Auton, so that stayed.

> How can the device the Doctor implanted into Amys hand still be transmitting
> her voice after the Silence removed it?

Because it was bioencoded or something.

> When did Nixon start taping all of his conversations in the Oval Office.
> Before or after the Doctor suggests it July 1969?

Nixon made it clear in the interview with Frost that Kennedy recorded
all the conversations in the Oval Office. (And I recall the military
questioning the "13 Days" version of the military wanting war and said
the Kennedy tapes agreed with their version.)

> 10/10 for the story so far but it obviously hasn't been completed and I hope
> this doesn't end up as another reset.

I was afraid when the body bags turned up it would be,

===
= DUG.
===
Agamemnon
2011-05-02 23:21:29 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
"Duggy" <***@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:9ad0c174-c9f7-4bd5-bbd7-***@d19g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
On May 1, 6:55 am, "Agamemnon" <***@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote:
> Good acting all round.

> Lots of stuff that doesn't seem to add up which hopefully will be
> explained
> later.

<<<I'm sure some will.>>>

> River mentions once again that she's living her life with the Doctor in
> reverse,

<<<I know. This is new and sucks.>>>

I think I've worked out the reason for this.

Moffat couldn't have Tennant give River his sonic screwdriver on their last
encounter together because he left so he's made River travel backwards with
respect to the Doctor's timeline so that it's Matt Smith who gives her the
sonic screwdriver on his last encounter with her which is her first
encounter with him.

> so when did the Doctor give her his supped up sonic screwdriver
> which she said he was supposed to have given her during their last time
> together, which has to be in the Doctor's past? It can't have been
> Tennant's
> Doctor because she didn't recognise him

<<<Yes, she did.>>>

> On top of that the Doctor mentions to River an adventure she's hasn't yet
> been on when he's 200 years older so that doesn't add up either if every
> time she meets him, he's younger.

<<<That's because there were 2 Doctors in this time period. The Doctor
she was synced with was ours, not the older one.

Doesn't explain the need for the diary any other time than that,
though.>>>

> And how does she end up back in jail for
> the Weeping Angels story if she's just escaped from it for this one?

<<<The Doctor took her back (at her request) at the end of the episode.>>>

> Amy pregnant for 3 months then not pregnant. Is the Time Lord gestation
> period 3 months or less?

<<<The TARDIS test clearly showed that she was in flux between being
pregnant and not being pregnant.>>>

She could have had the foetus removed from here womb by the Silence hence
her purpose was complete and the TARDIS was detecting pregnancy hormones in
some places and none in others.
Ignis Fatuus
2011-05-02 23:32:20 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tue, 3 May 2011 00:21:29 +0100, "Agamemnon"
<***@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote:

>
>"Duggy" <***@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:9ad0c174-c9f7-4bd5-bbd7-***@d19g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
>On May 1, 6:55 am, "Agamemnon" <***@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote:
>> Good acting all round.
>
>> Lots of stuff that doesn't seem to add up which hopefully will be
>> explained
>> later.
>
><<<I'm sure some will.>>>
>
>> River mentions once again that she's living her life with the Doctor in
>> reverse,
>
><<<I know. This is new and sucks.>>>
>
>I think I've worked out the reason for this.
>
>Moffat couldn't have Tennant give River his sonic screwdriver on their last
>encounter together because he left so he's made River travel backwards with
>respect to the Doctor's timeline so that it's Matt Smith who gives her the
>sonic screwdriver on his last encounter with her which is her first
>encounter with him.

But she hasn't got the screwdriver yet, and she's had her first
meeting with the Doctor (but not necessarily with Smith as we're
seeing the encounters along the Doctor's timeline). There's no reason
why their timelines should be operating in precisely opposite
directions. A future Doctor could travel to an early point in Her
timeline, providing her with her First encounter, and then leave and
travel forwards along her timeline to deliver the screwdriver at their
penultimate meeting. There's also the possibility of other
undocumented meetings with Tennant's Doctor.
>
>> so when did the Doctor give her his supped up sonic screwdriver
>> which she said he was supposed to have given her during their last time
>> together, which has to be in the Doctor's past? It can't have been
>> Tennant's
>> Doctor because she didn't recognise him
>
><<<Yes, she did.>>>
>
>> On top of that the Doctor mentions to River an adventure she's hasn't yet
>> been on when he's 200 years older so that doesn't add up either if every
>> time she meets him, he's younger.
>
><<<That's because there were 2 Doctors in this time period. The Doctor
>she was synced with was ours, not the older one.
>
>Doesn't explain the need for the diary any other time than that,
>though.>>>
>
>> And how does she end up back in jail for
>> the Weeping Angels story if she's just escaped from it for this one?
>
><<<The Doctor took her back (at her request) at the end of the episode.>>>
>
>> Amy pregnant for 3 months then not pregnant. Is the Time Lord gestation
>> period 3 months or less?
>
><<<The TARDIS test clearly showed that she was in flux between being
>pregnant and not being pregnant.>>>
>
>She could have had the foetus removed from here womb by the Silence hence
>her purpose was complete and the TARDIS was detecting pregnancy hormones in
>some places and none in others.
>
>
Duggy
2011-05-03 00:49:35 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On May 3, 9:32 am, Ignis Fatuus <***@fatuusisland.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 3 May 2011 00:21:29 +0100, "Agamemnon"
>
>
>
> <***@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote:
>
> >"Duggy" <***@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >news:9ad0c174-c9f7-4bd5-bbd7-***@d19g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
> >On May 1, 6:55 am, "Agamemnon" <***@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote:
> >> Good acting all round.
>
> >> Lots of stuff that doesn't seem to add up which hopefully will be
> >> explained
> >> later.
>
> ><<<I'm sure some will.>>>
>
> >> River mentions once again that she's living her life with the Doctor in
> >> reverse,
>
> ><<<I know.  This is new and sucks.>>>
>
> >I think I've worked out the reason for this.
>
> >Moffat couldn't have Tennant give River his sonic screwdriver on their last
> >encounter together because he left so he's made River travel backwards with
> >respect to the Doctor's timeline so that it's Matt Smith who gives her the
> >sonic screwdriver on his last encounter with her which is her first
> >encounter with him.
>
> But she hasn't got the screwdriver yet, and she's had her first
> meeting with the Doctor (but not necessarily with Smith as we're
> seeing the encounters along the Doctor's timeline). There's no reason
> why their timelines should be operating in precisely opposite
> directions. A future Doctor could travel to an early point in Her
> timeline, providing her with her First encounter, and then leave and
> travel forwards along her timeline to deliver the screwdriver at their
> penultimate meeting. There's also the possibility of other
> undocumented meetings with Tennant's Doctor.

True. At which time she would have got the screwdriver at that time
and not have it now.

===
= DUG.
===
Duggy
2011-05-03 00:47:59 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On May 3, 9:21 am, "Agamemnon" <***@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote:
> <<<I know.  This is new and sucks.>>>

> I think I've worked out the reason for this.

The reason is it's a stronger time traveller tradegy.

> Moffat couldn't have Tennant give River his sonic screwdriver on their last
> encounter together because he left so he's made River travel backwards with
> respect to the Doctor's timeline so that it's Matt Smith who gives her the
> sonic screwdriver on his last encounter with her which is her first
> encounter with him.

Which would have been Fall of the Byzantum... but clearly wasn't.

> <<<The TARDIS test clearly showed that she was in flux between being
> pregnant and not being pregnant.>>>
> She could have had the foetus removed from here womb by the Silence hence
> her purpose was complete and the TARDIS was detecting pregnancy hormones in
> some places and none in others.

No, toggling state. It's timey whimey.

===
= DUG.
===
marc_CH
2011-05-02 09:27:16 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 30/04/2011 21:55, Agamemnon wrote:

> 10/10 for the story so far but it obviously hasn't been completed and I hope
> this doesn't end up as another reset.

I suggest you prepare yourself for the worst. The writing was really
dire and reeks of 'reset button'. Then again, the whole series has
reeked of it since Eccleston kissed Rose in the 'RTD panics because
leading character is quitting suddenly' script reboot.

I preferred Moffat when he had bits and pieces of the writing to
himself. Now that he has his hand on the tiller he seems to be as keen
on the same kind of absurdities as before.

--
marc
Duggy
2011-05-02 09:58:38 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On May 2, 7:27 pm, marc_CH <***@crumhorn.org> wrote:
> I suggest you prepare yourself for the worst. The writing was really
> dire and reeks of 'reset button'. Then again, the whole series has
> reeked of it since Eccleston kissed Rose in the 'RTD panics because
> leading character is quitting suddenly' script reboot.

There was no sudden quiting. Eccleston was contracted for one year
because RTD planned to write him out.

If Eccleston had stayed for 4 years the regeneration could have killed
the show's ratings.

===
= DUG.
===
Ignis Fatuus
2011-05-02 10:19:00 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Mon, 2 May 2011 02:58:38 -0700 (PDT), Duggy
<***@gmail.com> wrote:

>On May 2, 7:27 pm, marc_CH <***@crumhorn.org> wrote:
>> I suggest you prepare yourself for the worst. The writing was really
>> dire and reeks of 'reset button'. Then again, the whole series has
>> reeked of it since Eccleston kissed Rose in the 'RTD panics because
>> leading character is quitting suddenly' script reboot.
>
>There was no sudden quiting. Eccleston was contracted for one year
>because RTD planned to write him out.
>
I don't believe for one minute that Eccleston was hired with the
intention of keeping him for just one season. The whole build-up and
launch of the series presented him as the New Doctor for the
foreseeable future. He was included in the announcement of the
Christmas Special, just before the announcement of his departure, and
featured on the Jonathan Ross show being introduced to his Christmas
'action figure'. The announcement that Tennant would replace him came
two weeks after the announcement of his departure. If this debacle had
been planned it was an act of gross incompetence that's pretty unique,
even for the BBC.


>If Eccleston had stayed for 4 years the regeneration could have killed
>the show's ratings.
>
>===
>= DUG.
>===
Duggy
2011-05-02 10:38:28 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On May 2, 8:19 pm, Ignis Fatuus <***@fatuusisland.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 2 May 2011 02:58:38 -0700 (PDT), Duggy
>
> <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On May 2, 7:27 pm, marc_CH <***@crumhorn.org> wrote:
> >> I suggest you prepare yourself for the worst. The writing was really
> >> dire and reeks of 'reset button'. Then again, the whole series has
> >> reeked of it since Eccleston kissed Rose in the 'RTD panics because
> >> leading character is quitting suddenly' script reboot.
>
> >There was no sudden quiting.  Eccleston was contracted for one year
> >because RTD planned to write him out.
>
> I don't believe for one minute that Eccleston was hired with the
> intention of keeping him for just one season. The whole build-up and
> launch  of the series presented him as the New Doctor for the
> foreseeable future. He was included in the announcement of the
> Christmas Special, just before the announcement of his departure, and
> featured on the Jonathan Ross show being introduced to his Christmas
> 'action figure'. The announcement that Tennant would replace him came
> two weeks after the announcement of his departure. If this debacle had
> been planned it was an act of gross incompetence that's pretty unique,
> even for the BBC.

So you fell for their misdirect?

===
= DUG.
===
Ignis Fatuus
2011-05-02 10:41:46 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Mon, 2 May 2011 03:38:28 -0700 (PDT), Duggy
<***@gmail.com> wrote:

>On May 2, 8:19 pm, Ignis Fatuus <***@fatuusisland.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, 2 May 2011 02:58:38 -0700 (PDT), Duggy
>>
>> <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >On May 2, 7:27 pm, marc_CH <***@crumhorn.org> wrote:
>> >> I suggest you prepare yourself for the worst. The writing was really
>> >> dire and reeks of 'reset button'. Then again, the whole series has
>> >> reeked of it since Eccleston kissed Rose in the 'RTD panics because
>> >> leading character is quitting suddenly' script reboot.
>>
>> >There was no sudden quiting.  Eccleston was contracted for one year
>> >because RTD planned to write him out.
>>
>> I don't believe for one minute that Eccleston was hired with the
>> intention of keeping him for just one season. The whole build-up and
>> launch  of the series presented him as the New Doctor for the
>> foreseeable future. He was included in the announcement of the
>> Christmas Special, just before the announcement of his departure, and
>> featured on the Jonathan Ross show being introduced to his Christmas
>> 'action figure'. The announcement that Tennant would replace him came
>> two weeks after the announcement of his departure. If this debacle had
>> been planned it was an act of gross incompetence that's pretty unique,
>> even for the BBC.
>
>So you fell for their misdirect?
>
No; but it looks as if you fell for the spin.
Tim Bruening
2017-05-07 00:56:56 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Monday, May 2, 2011 at 3:19:00 AM UTC-7, Ignis Fatuus wrote:
> On Mon, 2 May 2011 02:58:38 -0700 (PDT), Duggy
> <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On May 2, 7:27 pm, marc_CH <***@crumhorn.org> wrote:
> >> I suggest you prepare yourself for the worst. The writing was really
> >> dire and reeks of 'reset button'. Then again, the whole series has
> >> reeked of it since Eccleston kissed Rose in the 'RTD panics because
> >> leading character is quitting suddenly' script reboot.
> >
> >There was no sudden quiting. Eccleston was contracted for one year
> >because RTD planned to write him out.
> >
> I don't believe for one minute that Eccleston was hired with the
> intention of keeping him for just one season. The whole build-up and
> launch of the series presented him as the New Doctor for the
> foreseeable future. He was included in the announcement of the
> Christmas Special, just before the announcement of his departure, and
> featured on the Jonathan Ross show being introduced to his Christmas
> 'action figure'. The announcement that Tennant would replace him came
> two weeks after the announcement of his departure. If this debacle had
> been planned it was an act of gross incompetence that's pretty unique,
> even for the BBC.

If the departure was sudden and unplanned, how did the BBC obtain a replacement Doctor so quickly?
Stephen Wilson
2011-05-03 17:27:06 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
"Duggy" <***@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:ace36c46-a2e4-461c-ad2b-***@r35g2000prj.googlegroups.com...
On May 2, 7:27 pm, marc_CH <***@crumhorn.org> wrote:
>> I suggest you prepare yourself for the worst. The writing was really
>> dire and reeks of 'reset button'. Then again, the whole series has
>> reeked of it since Eccleston kissed Rose in the 'RTD panics because
>> leading character is quitting suddenly' script reboot.
>
>There was no sudden quiting. Eccleston was contracted for one year
>because RTD planned to write him out.

That's only partially true. Eccleston was contracted for one year - nobody
knew whether the new Dr Who would last more than a year. However RTD had not
planned to write him out and everyone involved in the show pretty much
begged him to stay for a further series. Eccleston quit for reasons unknown.
The BBC stated it was because he didn't want to be typecast. They then had
to retract that statement, but Eccleston and the BBC have remained
tight-lipped about the real reaon he quit. Let's call it "artistic
differences".
solar penguin
2011-05-03 17:34:00 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Stephen Wilson wrote:

> Eccleston was contracted for one year - nobody
> knew whether the new Dr Who would last more than a year. However RTD had not
> planned to write him out and everyone involved in the show pretty much
> begged him to stay for a further series. Eccleston quit for reasons unknown.
> The BBC stated it was because he didn't want to be typecast. They then had
> to retract that statement, but Eccleston and the BBC have remained
> tight-lipped about the real reaon he quit. Let's call it "artistic
> differences".

IIRC there was a radio interview Eccleston gave which must've been
around the time he was thinking of quitting. He said he was surprised
by the lack of character development in the Doctor, still doing the
same sort of things in episode 8 as he'd done in episode 1. Maybe
that had something to do with it.
Charles E Hardwidge
2011-05-04 08:32:58 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
"solar penguin" <***@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:3d6dac63-bc92-42ca-bd6d-***@q21g2000vbs.googlegroups.com...
>
> IIRC there was a radio interview Eccleston gave which must've been
> around the time he was thinking of quitting. He said he was surprised
> by the lack of character development in the Doctor, still doing the
> same sort of things in episode 8 as he'd done in episode 1. Maybe
> that had something to do with it.

I haven't heart that before. I just heard the rumour about issues with RTD
and working with the deadbeats in Cardiff.

Funnily enough, when I logged on this morning and looking over the comments
of the latest episode (6.03) I was thinking about the poor character
development (and non-existent plot and direction).

Moffat's showcase, Silk, had the pretence of a plot but still suffered from
knee-jerking and cardboard characters. The direction was good but nothing
outstanding. Not sure what his issues are with Doctor Who but the sci-fi
angle and it not being his franchise aren't doing him any favours.

The BBC are stuck between being formulaic (docs and drama) and trying to do
something new and justify the licence fee. Commercial TV has its own issues
and pressures. It's not that people can't produce stuff. I just think
there's other issues like management and the market getting in the way.
British TV is run like a gentleman's club.

--
Charles E Hardwidge
Duggy
2011-05-06 09:10:44 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On May 4, 6:32 pm, "Charles E Hardwidge" <***@invalid.invalid>
wrote:
> Moffat's showcase, Silk,

Ha-ha, pretending you've mixed up two people with the same surname.

Classic.

===
= DUG.
===
john smith
2011-05-02 13:15:45 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
"marc_CH" <***@crumhorn.org> wrote in message
news:***@mid.individual.net...
> On 30/04/2011 21:55, Agamemnon wrote:
>
>> 10/10 for the story so far but it obviously hasn't been completed and I
>> hope
>> this doesn't end up as another reset.
>
> I suggest you prepare yourself for the worst. The writing was really dire
> and reeks of 'reset button'. Then again, the whole series has reeked of it
> since Eccleston kissed Rose in the 'RTD panics because leading character
> is quitting suddenly' script reboot.
>


Is that what *really* happened though?

There's a good 'theory' here that seems quite plausible re the 'Eccleston
debacle'...

http://www.2000adonline.com/forum/index.php/topic,32758.105.html




> I preferred Moffat when he had bits and pieces of the writing to himself.
> Now that he has his hand on the tiller he seems to be as keen on the same
> kind of absurdities as before.
>
> --
> marc
>
Charles E Hardwidge
2011-05-02 13:24:03 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
"john smith" <***@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:V7yvp.287$***@newsfe21.ams2...
> "marc_CH" <***@crumhorn.org> wrote in message
> news:***@mid.individual.net...

>> I suggest you prepare yourself for the worst. The writing was really dire
>> and reeks of 'reset button'. Then again, the whole series has reeked of
>> it since Eccleston kissed Rose in the 'RTD panics because leading
>> character is quitting suddenly' script reboot.

> Is that what *really* happened though?
>
> There's a good 'theory' here that seems quite plausible re the 'Eccleston
> debacle'...

The polite form is "scheduling conflict".

--
Charles E Hardwidge
The Doctor
2011-05-02 14:33:49 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
In article <ipmb99$4f2$***@dont-email.me>,
Charles E Hardwidge <***@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>"john smith" <***@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
>news:V7yvp.287$***@newsfe21.ams2...
>> "marc_CH" <***@crumhorn.org> wrote in message
>> news:***@mid.individual.net...
>
>>> I suggest you prepare yourself for the worst. The writing was really dire
>>> and reeks of 'reset button'. Then again, the whole series has reeked of
>>> it since Eccleston kissed Rose in the 'RTD panics because leading
>>> character is quitting suddenly' script reboot.
>
>> Is that what *really* happened though?
>>
>> There's a good 'theory' here that seems quite plausible re the 'Eccleston
>> debacle'...
>
>The polite form is "scheduling conflict".
>
>--
>Charles E Hardwidge
>

As you like it!!
--
Member - Liberal International This is ***@nl2k.ab.ca Ici ***@nl2k.ab.ca
God, Queen and country! Never Satan President Republic! Beware AntiChrist rising!
http://twitter.com/rootnl2k http://www.facebook.com/dyadallee
Stop Stephen Harper ! on 2 May 2011 vote !
Stephen Wilson
2011-05-02 20:21:53 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
"marc_CH" <***@crumhorn.org> wrote in message
news:***@mid.individual.net...
> On 30/04/2011 21:55, Agamemnon wrote:
>
>> 10/10 for the story so far but it obviously hasn't been completed and I
>> hope
>> this doesn't end up as another reset.
>
> I suggest you prepare yourself for the worst. The writing was really dire
> and reeks of 'reset button'. Then again, the whole series has reeked of it
> since Eccleston kissed Rose in the 'RTD panics because leading character
> is quitting suddenly' script reboot.
>
> I preferred Moffat when he had bits and pieces of the writing to himself.
> Now that he has his hand on the tiller he seems to be as keen on the same
> kind of absurdities as before.

What she said!
p***@aol.com
2011-05-07 16:00:48 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Apr 30, 4:55 pm, "Agamemnon" <***@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote:
> Good acting all round.
>
> Lots of stuff that doesn't seem to add up which hopefully will be explained
> later.
>
> River mentions once again that she's living her life with the Doctor in
> reverse, so when did the Doctor give her his supped up sonic screwdriver
> which she said he was supposed to have given her during their last time
> together, which has to be in the Doctor's past? It can't have been Tennant's
> Doctor because she didn't recognise him and thought he looked younger and we
> all know he looked the same before he regenerated. If it was Matt Smith's
> Doctor then why weren't we shown the moment, and it obviously must have
> happened in the Doctor's time line before the story with the Weeping Angels
> but the 11th Doctor hasn't seen her before that event.

She said she was given it when the Doctor dropped by to visit her,
specifically preparing for the events of Silence in the Library - it's
not something that will be covered in an episode. Though it does seem
to be inconsistent with this idiotic idea that they're predestined to
meet in reverse order, rather than meeting randomly out of sequence.

> Is the girl River. Both Amy and River have strawberry blonde/red hair.

River isn't a Time Lord. Amy's hair is red, River's is blonde - what's
the connection there?

> How can the device the Doctor implanted into Amys hand still be transmitting
> her voice after the Silence removed it?

Because it's a lazy retread of the voices in transmitters/people in
spacesuits vibe from Silence in the Library, without sufficient
forethought.

> When did Nixon start taping all of his conversations in the Oval Office.
> Before or after the Doctor suggests it July 1969?
>
> 10/10 for the story so far but it obviously hasn't been completed and I hope
> this doesn't end up as another reset.

You have a strange grading system.

Phil
Duggy
2011-05-07 16:14:46 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On May 8, 2:00 am, "***@aol.com" <***@aol.com> wrote:
> She said she was given it when the Doctor dropped by to visit her,
> specifically preparing for the events of Silence in the Library - it's
> not something that will be covered in an episode. Though it does seem
> to be inconsistent with this idiotic idea that they're predestined to
> meet in reverse order, rather than meeting randomly out of sequence.

Agreed. Unless they drop that idea this has already happened.

> > Is the girl River. Both Amy and River have strawberry blonde/red hair.
> River isn't a Time Lord. Amy's hair is red, River's is blonde - what's
> the connection there?

Dunno. People clutching straws?

> > How can the device the Doctor implanted into Amys hand still be transmitting
> > her voice after the Silence removed it?
> Because it's a lazy retread of the voices in transmitters/people in
> spacesuits vibe from Silence in the Library, without sufficient
> forethought.

It tunes itself directly to the speech centres in your brain.

As stated in the episode.

===
= DUG.
===
James Kuyper
2011-05-08 03:05:16 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 05/07/2011 12:00 PM, ***@aol.com wrote:
...
> River isn't a Time Lord.

I've already commented that it seems unlikely that she could be a Time
Lord without the Doctor both noticing the fact, and commenting on it.
However, that's fairly weak evidence. Do you have any stronger evidence
that she's not a time lord?
--
James Kuyper
p***@aol.com
2011-05-08 03:23:18 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On May 7, 11:05 pm, James Kuyper <***@verizon.net> wrote:
> On 05/07/2011 12:00 PM, ***@aol.com wrote:
> ...
>
> > River isn't a Time Lord.
>
> I've already commented that it seems unlikely that she could be a Time
> Lord without the Doctor both noticing the fact, and commenting on it.
> However, that's fairly weak evidence. Do you have any stronger evidence
> that she's not a time lord?

I'm fairly sure she's specifically mentioned being human at one point.

Phil
TB
2015-05-31 00:19:22 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
The footage of Neil Armstrong stepping on the Moon seemed to show that event from the point of view of someone OUTSIDE the Lunar landing module. How could that be, since Armstrong was the FIRST man to ever set foot on the Moon?
Keith Cunningham
2015-05-31 08:09:40 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 31/05/2015 01:19, TB wrote:
> The footage of Neil Armstrong stepping on the Moon seemed to show that event from the point of view of someone OUTSIDE the Lunar landing module. How could that be, since Armstrong was the FIRST man to ever set foot on the Moon?
>

The camera must have been attached to the outside of the module.
The Doctor
2015-05-31 12:40:41 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
In article <Bp-dnaClm8VZXPfInZ2dnUVZ7t-***@brightview.co.uk>,
Keith Cunningham <***@talus.plus.com> wrote:
>On 31/05/2015 01:19, TB wrote:
>> The footage of Neil Armstrong stepping on the Moon seemed to show that event from the point of view of someone OUTSIDE the Lunar landing module. How could that be, since Armstrong was the FIRST man to ever set foot on the Moon?
>>
>
>The camera must have been attached to the outside of the module.

Please don't lead credence to the conspiracy theorists.
--
Member - Liberal International This is doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca Ici doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca
God,Queen and country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
http://www.fullyfollow.me/rootnl2k Look at Psalms 14 and 53 on Atheism
UK! Vote LDem on 7 May 2015!!
Your Name
2015-05-31 21:49:12 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
In article <Bp-dnaClm8VZXPfInZ2dnUVZ7t-***@brightview.co.uk>, Keith
Cunningham <***@talus.plus.com> wrote:
> On 31/05/2015 01:19, TB wrote:
> >
> > The footage of Neil Armstrong stepping on the Moon seemed to show that
> > event from the point of view of someone OUTSIDE the Lunar landing module.
> > How could that be, since Armstrong was the FIRST man to ever set foot on
> > the Moon?
>
> The camera must have been attached to the outside of the module.

You shouldn't confuse the dimwitted and conspiracy nutters with actual
facts.
TB
2015-05-31 22:19:02 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sunday, May 31, 2015 at 2:48:47 PM UTC-7, Your Name wrote:
> In article <Bp-dnaClm8VZXPfInZ2dnUVZ7t-***@brightview.co.uk>, Keith
> Cunningham <***@talus.plus.com> wrote:
> > On 31/05/2015 01:19, TB wrote:
> > >
> > > The footage of Neil Armstrong stepping on the Moon seemed to show that
> > > event from the point of view of someone OUTSIDE the Lunar landing module.
> > > How could that be, since Armstrong was the FIRST man to ever set foot on
> > > the Moon?
> >
> > The camera must have been attached to the outside of the module.
>
> You shouldn't confuse the dimwitted and conspiracy nutters with actual
> facts.

Where do facts and. and dimwitted and conspiracy nutters begin?
Pudentame
2015-06-03 04:36:10 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Mon, 01 Jun 2015 09:49:12 +1200, Your Name <***@YourISP.com>
wrote:

>In article <Bp-dnaClm8VZXPfInZ2dnUVZ7t-***@brightview.co.uk>, Keith
>Cunningham <***@talus.plus.com> wrote:
>> On 31/05/2015 01:19, TB wrote:
>> >
>> > The footage of Neil Armstrong stepping on the Moon seemed to show that
>> > event from the point of view of someone OUTSIDE the Lunar landing module.
>> > How could that be, since Armstrong was the FIRST man to ever set foot on
>> > the Moon?
>>
>> The camera must have been attached to the outside of the module.
>
>You shouldn't confuse the dimwitted and conspiracy nutters with actual
>facts.

"Conspiracy" implies intelligence.

Don't ascribe to conspiracy what is easily explaind by simple
stupidity.

I remember watching it live and when Armstrong first got outside on
the ladder there was no video.

The camera was stowed on a platform that was folded into the side of
the lunar module, and once Armstrong got onto the ladder he had to
pull a D-ring to deploy the stowed equipment and activate the camera.

There was a lot of discussion whether the equipment package was going
to deploy properly so the camera could record Armstrong's first steps
on the Moon.

Apollo used a slow-scan TV system that wasn't compatible with
broadcast TV, so the images were displayed on a special monitor at
mission control with a standard TV camera pointed at it which
significantly reduced the signal quality of what was broadcast.

After collecting his contingency sample, Armstrong removed the camera
from the platform on the side of the lunar module & set it up on a
tripod out away from the Lunar Module.
TB
2016-07-05 22:02:47 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
15 days to Independence From The Silence Day on July 20.
TB
2016-07-13 18:01:09 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tuesday, July 5, 2016 at 3:02:48 PM UTC-7, TB wrote:
> 15 days to Independence From The Silence Day on July 20.

Now 1 week.
The Doctor
2016-07-13 20:48:20 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
In article <bcd42243-b2a6-49d2-89b9-***@googlegroups.com>,
TB <***@dcn.davis.ca.us> wrote:
>On Tuesday, July 5, 2016 at 3:02:48 PM UTC-7, TB wrote:
>> 15 days to Independence From The Silence Day on July 20.
>
>Now 1 week.

Welcome to mid month.
--
Member - Liberal International This is doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca Ici doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca
God,Queen and country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
http://www.fullyfollow.me/rootnl2k Look at Psalms 14 and 53 on Atheism
Language is the source of misunderstandings. -Antoine de Saint-Exupery
Tim Bruening
2016-07-14 17:58:13 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tuesday, June 2, 2015 at 9:36:08 PM UTC-7, Pudentame wrote:
> On Mon, 01 Jun 2015 09:49:12 +1200, Your Name <***@YourISP.com>
> wrote:
>
> >In article <Bp-dnaClm8VZXPfInZ2dnUVZ7t-***@brightview.co.uk>, Keith
> >Cunningham <***@talus.plus.com> wrote:
> >> On 31/05/2015 01:19, TB wrote:
> >> >
> >> > The footage of Neil Armstrong stepping on the Moon seemed to show that
> >> > event from the point of view of someone OUTSIDE the Lunar landing module.
> >> > How could that be, since Armstrong was the FIRST man to ever set foot on
> >> > the Moon?
> >>
> >> The camera must have been attached to the outside of the module.
> >
> >You shouldn't confuse the dimwitted and conspiracy nutters with actual
> >facts.
>
> "Conspiracy" implies intelligence.
>
> Don't ascribe to conspiracy what is easily explaind by simple
> stupidity.
>
> I remember watching it live and when Armstrong first got outside on
> the ladder there was no video.
>
> The camera was stowed on a platform that was folded into the side of
> the lunar module, and once Armstrong got onto the ladder he had to
> pull a D-ring to deploy the stowed equipment and activate the camera.
>
> There was a lot of discussion whether the equipment package was going
> to deploy properly so the camera could record Armstrong's first steps
> on the Moon.
>
> Apollo used a slow-scan TV system that wasn't compatible with
> broadcast TV, so the images were displayed on a special monitor at
> mission control with a standard TV camera pointed at it which
> significantly reduced the signal quality of what was broadcast.

And then NASA somehow lost their recording of the slow scan signal! This seems out of character for an organization dedicated to science.
The Doctor
2016-07-14 20:26:30 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
In article <95a7a0fc-c9e9-42c9-9512-***@googlegroups.com>,
Tim Bruening <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Tuesday, June 2, 2015 at 9:36:08 PM UTC-7, Pudentame wrote:
>> On Mon, 01 Jun 2015 09:49:12 +1200, Your Name <***@YourISP.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >In article <Bp-dnaClm8VZXPfInZ2dnUVZ7t-***@brightview.co.uk>, Keith
>> >Cunningham <***@talus.plus.com> wrote:
>> >> On 31/05/2015 01:19, TB wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > The footage of Neil Armstrong stepping on the Moon seemed to show that
>> >> > event from the point of view of someone OUTSIDE the Lunar landing module.
>> >> > How could that be, since Armstrong was the FIRST man to ever set foot on
>> >> > the Moon?
>> >>
>> >> The camera must have been attached to the outside of the module.
>> >
>> >You shouldn't confuse the dimwitted and conspiracy nutters with actual
>> >facts.
>>
>> "Conspiracy" implies intelligence.
>>
>> Don't ascribe to conspiracy what is easily explaind by simple
>> stupidity.
>>
>> I remember watching it live and when Armstrong first got outside on
>> the ladder there was no video.
>>
>> The camera was stowed on a platform that was folded into the side of
>> the lunar module, and once Armstrong got onto the ladder he had to
>> pull a D-ring to deploy the stowed equipment and activate the camera.
>>
>> There was a lot of discussion whether the equipment package was going
>> to deploy properly so the camera could record Armstrong's first steps
>> on the Moon.
>>
>> Apollo used a slow-scan TV system that wasn't compatible with
>> broadcast TV, so the images were displayed on a special monitor at
>> mission control with a standard TV camera pointed at it which
>> significantly reduced the signal quality of what was broadcast.
>
>And then NASA somehow lost their recording of the slow scan signal! This seems out of character for an organization dedicated to science.

And video.
--
Member - Liberal International This is doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca Ici doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca
God,Queen and country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
http://www.fullyfollow.me/rootnl2k Look at Psalms 14 and 53 on Atheism
Language is the source of misunderstandings. -Antoine de Saint-Exupery
Tim Bruening
2016-09-25 20:57:03 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sunday, May 31, 2015 at 1:09:41 AM UTC-7, Keith Cunningham wrote:
> On 31/05/2015 01:19, TB wrote:
> > The footage of Neil Armstrong stepping on the Moon seemed to show that event from the point of view of someone OUTSIDE the Lunar landing module. How could that be, since Armstrong was the FIRST man to ever set foot on the Moon?
> >
>
> The camera must have been attached to the outside of the module.

Who attached it?
Daniel60
2017-01-21 12:44:04 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 26/09/2016 6:57 AM, Tim Bruening wrote:
> On Sunday, May 31, 2015 at 1:09:41 AM UTC-7, Keith Cunningham wrote:
>> On 31/05/2015 01:19, TB wrote:
>>> The footage of Neil Armstrong stepping on the Moon seemed to show that event from the point of view of someone OUTSIDE the Lunar landing module. How could that be, since Armstrong was the FIRST man to ever set foot on the Moon?
>>>
>>
>> The camera must have been attached to the outside of the module.
>
> Who attached it?
>
A Technician on Earth, perhaps!!

Daniel
Pudentame
2017-01-22 02:11:44 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sat, 21 Jan 2017 23:44:04 +1100, Daniel60
<***@eternal-september.org> wrote:

>On 26/09/2016 6:57 AM, Tim Bruening wrote:
>> On Sunday, May 31, 2015 at 1:09:41 AM UTC-7, Keith Cunningham wrote:
>>> On 31/05/2015 01:19, TB wrote:
>>>> The footage of Neil Armstrong stepping on the Moon seemed to show that
>>>> event from the point of view of someone OUTSIDE the Lunar landing module.
>>>> How could that be, since Armstrong was the FIRST man to ever set foot on
>>>> the Moon?
>>>>
>>>
>>> The camera must have been attached to the outside of the module.
>>
>> Who attached it?
>>
>A Technician on Earth, perhaps!!
>
>Daniel

There were multiple cameras.

The one that showed the "One small step ..." was a slow-scan TV
camera mounted to a stowage assembly on the side of the Lunar Module.

It was pre-sighted so that when the stowage assembly deployed the
camera was aimed at the ladder where Armstrong would descend from the
cabin.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_TV_camera

Lunar Lander Training Mockup showing what the camera would look like
in the deployed position:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_TV_camera#/media/File:ApolloTVCameraOnLunarModule.jpg

Slow scan TV was chosen because the Lunar Lander's radio communication
system didn't have the bandwidth to transmit a full regular TV signal.

They also did still photos using special cameras based on the
Hassleblad 500EL. The cameras has special film magazines that could be
changed by the Astronauts wearing their space suits; loaded with
Kodak films developed specifically for NASA - a fine grained
Panatomic-X B&W filme rated at ASA 80, Kodak Ektachrome SO-68 & Kodak
Ektrachome SO-121 and a Kodak 2485 rated at ASA 1600.

https://petapixel.com/2014/07/29/a-detailed-look-at-the-camera-tech-behind-the-historical-apollo-11-moon-landing/

They also carried movie cameras along for their landing, but I didn't
find information about what cameras were used, but you can see the
movies of the separation from Apollo Command Module & the view out the
window of the Lunar Lander (aka LEM - Lunar Excursion Module) in this
NASA archive footage.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lRwKUScppvQ

I remember getting up in the middle of the night to watch Armstrong
come down the ladder.

Later they moved the slow scan TV camera out away from the Lunar
Lander to show the LEM upper stage liftoff.
Daniel60
2017-01-22 10:14:09 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 22/01/2017 1:11 PM, Pudentame wrote:

<Snip>

> I remember getting up in the middle of the night to watch Armstrong
> come down the ladder.

THE STEP occured about 12:30 p.m. whilst my class were in the Science
Lab/Music Room. It was the only room in the College which had a T.V. ...
a 26 inch, Black and White on a tall stand so the entire class could see
the picture.

Daniel
Tim Bruening
2017-01-22 21:26:39 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Why did a former FBI agent believe that President Nixon would be willing to authorize his marriage to a MAN?
The Doctor
2017-01-22 23:20:10 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
In article <2d11ac39-d9fd-467e-8a2a-***@googlegroups.com>,
Tim Bruening <***@dcn.davis.ca.us> wrote:
>Why did a former FBI agent believe that President Nixon would be willing
>to authorize his marriage to a MAN?

Maybe he would. He had to ask.
--
Member - Liberal International This is doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca Ici doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca
God,Queen and country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
http://www.fullyfollow.me/rootnl2k Look at Psalms 14 and 53 on Atheism
Birthdate 29 Jan 1969 Redhill Surrey England
Tim Bruening
2017-01-23 03:28:41 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sunday, January 22, 2017 at 3:20:10 PM UTC-8, The Doctor wrote:
> In article <2d11ac39-d9fd-467e-8a2a-***@googlegroups.com>,
> Tim Bruening <***@dcn.davis.ca.us> wrote:
> >Why did a former FBI agent believe that President Nixon would be willing
> >to authorize his marriage to a MAN?
>
> Maybe he would. He had to ask.

What made him think that Nixon might be willing to authorize a same sex marriage?
The Doctor
2017-01-23 04:19:45 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
In article <8c0eac47-4e22-43d3-a1d6-***@googlegroups.com>,
Tim Bruening <***@dcn.davis.ca.us> wrote:
>On Sunday, January 22, 2017 at 3:20:10 PM UTC-8, The Doctor wrote:
>> In article <2d11ac39-d9fd-467e-8a2a-***@googlegroups.com>,
>> Tim Bruening <***@dcn.davis.ca.us> wrote:
>> >Why did a former FBI agent believe that President Nixon would be willing
>> >to authorize his marriage to a MAN?
>>
>> Maybe he would. He had to ask.
>
>What made him think that Nixon might be willing to authorize a same sex
>marriage?

That is up to him.
--
Member - Liberal International This is doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca Ici doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca
God,Queen and country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
http://www.fullyfollow.me/rootnl2k Look at Psalms 14 and 53 on Atheism
Birthdate 29 Jan 1969 Redhill Surrey England
Pudentame
2017-01-26 02:35:26 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sun, 22 Jan 2017 21:14:09 +1100, Daniel60
<***@eternal-september.org> wrote:

>On 22/01/2017 1:11 PM, Pudentame wrote:
>
><Snip>
>
>> I remember getting up in the middle of the night to watch Armstrong
>> come down the ladder.
>
>THE STEP occured about 12:30 p.m. whilst my class were in the Science
>Lab/Music Room. It was the only room in the College which had a T.V. ...
>a 26 inch, Black and White on a tall stand so the entire class could see
>the picture.
>
>Daniel

It was about 10:56 pm here on a Monday Night. Don't know why I would
have been in bed that early, but I expect it was so I could get up
early to go to work on Tuesday. It was July - middle of the summer so
I was off from college - which means I had a job to earn the money to
pay my tuition in the fall.

Funny, I don't remember who I worked for that summer. It must have
been one of those really disgusting, back-breaking construction gigs.
I had several of them.

Maybe that was the summer I loaded trucks & railroad box cars.
Daniel60
2017-01-26 11:01:07 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 26/01/2017 1:35 PM, Pudentame wrote:
> On Sun, 22 Jan 2017 21:14:09 +1100, Daniel60
> <***@eternal-september.org> wrote:
>
>> On 22/01/2017 1:11 PM, Pudentame wrote:
>>
>> <Snip>
>>
>>> I remember getting up in the middle of the night to watch Armstrong
>>> come down the ladder.
>>
>> THE STEP occured about 12:30 p.m. whilst my class were in the Science
>> Lab/Music Room. It was the only room in the College which had a T.V. ...
>> a 26 inch, Black and White on a tall stand so the entire class could see
>> the picture.
>
> It was about 10:56 pm here on a Monday Night. Don't know why I would
> have been in bed that early, but I expect it was so I could get up
> early to go to work on Tuesday. It was July - middle of the summer so
> I was off from college - which means I had a job to earn the money to
> pay my tuition in the fall.
>
> Funny, I don't remember who I worked for that summer. It must have
> been one of those really disgusting, back-breaking construction gigs.
> I had several of them.
>
> Maybe that was the summer I loaded trucks & railroad box cars.
>
Boy oh Boy, you must be old!! As I typed above, I was in High School,
about year seven, I think.

My vast income would have come from morning and afternoon newspaper rounds!!

Daniel
TB
2016-07-18 18:27:05 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
What made a former FBI agent think that Nixon could authorize his marriage to a MAN?
TB
2016-09-03 18:53:41 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
What possesed a Silence to say that humans should kill hem all????
The Doctor
2016-09-03 20:51:04 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
In article <536bf28a-9193-4c10-b06e-***@googlegroups.com>,
TB <***@dcn.davis.ca.us> wrote:
>What possesed a Silence to say that humans should kill hem all????

Look at the manipualted recording.
--
Member - Liberal International This is doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca Ici doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca
God,Queen and country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
http://www.fullyfollow.me/rootnl2k Look at Psalms 14 and 53 on Atheism
Time for the USA to hold a referendum on its republic and vote to dissolve!!
Tim Bruening
2016-09-25 20:52:19 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Saturday, September 3, 2016 at 1:51:05 PM UTC-7, The Doctor wrote:
> In article <536bf28a-9193-4c10-b06e-***@googlegroups.com>,
> TB <***@dcn.davis.ca.us> wrote:
> >What possesed a Silence to say that humans should kill hem all????
>
> Look at the manipualted recording.

I saw an heard the Silence suggest that humans should kill them all at the time that he or she was being recorded!

BTW, do Silences have gender?
The Doctor
2016-09-25 21:41:29 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
In article <92e7d0ae-4731-4e07-ab08-***@googlegroups.com>,
Tim Bruening <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Saturday, September 3, 2016 at 1:51:05 PM UTC-7, The Doctor wrote:
>> In article <536bf28a-9193-4c10-b06e-***@googlegroups.com>,
>> TB <***@dcn.davis.ca.us> wrote:
>> >What possesed a Silence to say that humans should kill hem all????
>>
>> Look at the manipualted recording.
>
>I saw an heard the Silence suggest that humans should kill them all at
>the time that he or she was being recorded!
>
>BTW, do Silences have gender?

Not known.
--
Member - Liberal International This is doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca Ici doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca
God,Queen and country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
http://www.fullyfollow.me/rootnl2k Look at Psalms 14 and 53 on Atheism
Time for the USA to hold a referendum on its republic and vote to dissolve!!
Tim Bruening
2017-01-30 05:35:06 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Why doesn't the super dense Dwarf Star Alloy generate enough gravity to crush everyone nearby?

Why doesn't it fall through the ground to the center of the Earth?
The Doctor
2017-01-30 15:33:21 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
In article <2027e020-ef5c-4e9b-a6ec-***@googlegroups.com>,
Tim Bruening <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>Why doesn't the super dense Dwarf Star Alloy generate enough gravity to
>crush everyone nearby?
>
>Why doesn't it fall through the ground to the center of the Earth?


Answer this: What is happening to a dwarf Star?
--
Member - Liberal International This is doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca Ici doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca
God,Queen and country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
http://www.fullyfollow.me/rootnl2k Look at Psalms 14 and 53 on Atheism
Birthdate 29 Jan 1969 Redhill Surrey England
Tim Bruening
2017-01-30 20:01:49 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Monday, January 30, 2017 at 7:33:23 AM UTC-8, The Doctor wrote:
> In article <2027e020-ef5c-4e9b-a6ec-***@googlegroups.com>,
> Tim Bruening <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> >Why doesn't the super dense Dwarf Star Alloy generate enough gravity to
> >crush everyone nearby?
> >
> >Why doesn't it fall through the ground to the center of the Earth?
>
>
> Answer this: What is happening to a dwarf Star?

Its my understanding that its extremely dense. Can I assume that it has enough mass to have fusion?
The Doctor
2017-01-31 01:02:47 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
In article <d5aef242-03f2-4eef-bba5-***@googlegroups.com>,
Tim Bruening <***@dcn.davis.ca.us> wrote:
>On Monday, January 30, 2017 at 7:33:23 AM UTC-8, The Doctor wrote:
>> In article <2027e020-ef5c-4e9b-a6ec-***@googlegroups.com>,
>> Tim Bruening <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >Why doesn't the super dense Dwarf Star Alloy generate enough gravity to
>> >crush everyone nearby?
>> >
>> >Why doesn't it fall through the ground to the center of the Earth?
>>
>>
>> Answer this: What is happening to a dwarf Star?
>
>Its my understanding that its extremely dense. Can I assume that it has
>enough mass to have fusion?

Correct and compactly dense.
--
Member - Liberal International This is doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca Ici doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca
God,Queen and country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
http://www.fullyfollow.me/rootnl2k Look at Psalms 14 and 53 on Atheism
Birthdate 29 Jan 1969 Redhill Surrey England
Tim Bruening
2017-04-13 01:25:02 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Great moments: River Song diving out of a 15th floor window into the TARDIS swimming pool.

Amy seeing a bunch of Silences on the ceiling. How do they stay on the ceiling?

The Doctor's prison is made out of dwarf star alloy, which is extremely dense. Yet I think I saw two workmen lowering a large dwarf star allow brick into place by hand! How did they do that?
Daniel60
2017-04-13 10:02:07 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 13/04/2017 11:25 AM, Tim Bruening wrote:
> Great moments: River Song diving out of a 15th floor window into the TARDIS swimming pool.
>
> Amy seeing a bunch of Silences on the ceiling. How do they stay on the ceiling?
>
> The Doctor's prison is made out of dwarf star alloy, which is extremely dense. Yet I think I saw two workmen lowering a large dwarf star allow brick into place by hand! How did they do that?
>
microscopic anti-grav packs!! Lots of them!

Daniel
Tim Bruening
2017-04-13 16:28:06 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thursday, April 13, 2017 at 3:02:10 AM UTC-7, Daniel60 wrote:
> On 13/04/2017 11:25 AM, Tim Bruening wrote:
> > Great moments: River Song diving out of a 15th floor window into the TARDIS swimming pool.
> >
> > Amy seeing a bunch of Silences on the ceiling. How do they stay on the ceiling?
> >
> > The Doctor's prison is made out of dwarf star alloy, which is extremely dense. Yet I think I saw two workmen lowering a large dwarf star allow brick into place by hand! How did they do that?
> >
> microscopic anti-grav packs!! Lots of them!

I had no idea that the US had that technology in 1969? Or Dwarf Star Alloy, for that matter!
Daniel60
2017-04-14 13:13:24 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 14/04/2017 2:28 AM, Tim Bruening wrote:
> On Thursday, April 13, 2017 at 3:02:10 AM UTC-7, Daniel60 wrote:
>> On 13/04/2017 11:25 AM, Tim Bruening wrote:
>>> Great moments: River Song diving out of a 15th floor window into the TARDIS swimming pool.
>>>
>>> Amy seeing a bunch of Silences on the ceiling. How do they stay on the ceiling?
>>>
>>> The Doctor's prison is made out of dwarf star alloy, which is extremely dense. Yet I think I saw two workmen lowering a large dwarf star allow brick into place by hand! How did they do that?
>>>
>> microscopic anti-grav packs!! Lots of them!
>
> I had no idea that the US had that technology in 1969? Or Dwarf Star Alloy, for that matter!
>
Ah!! Well, there you go, Tim. You live, You learn!!

Daniel
Pudentame
2017-04-14 15:39:14 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Fri, 14 Apr 2017 23:13:24 +1000, Daniel60
<***@eternal-september.org> wrote:

>On 14/04/2017 2:28 AM, Tim Bruening wrote:
>> On Thursday, April 13, 2017 at 3:02:10 AM UTC-7, Daniel60 wrote:
>>> On 13/04/2017 11:25 AM, Tim Bruening wrote:
>>>> Great moments: River Song diving out of a 15th floor window into the TARDIS swimming pool.
>>>>
>>>> Amy seeing a bunch of Silences on the ceiling. How do they stay on the ceiling?
>>>>
>>>> The Doctor's prison is made out of dwarf star alloy, which is extremely dense. Yet I think I saw two workmen lowering a large dwarf star allow brick into place by hand! How did they do that?
>>>>
>>> microscopic anti-grav packs!! Lots of them!
>>
>> I had no idea that the US had that technology in 1969? Or Dwarf Star Alloy, for that matter!
>>
>Ah!! Well, there you go, Tim. You live, You learn!!
>

You learn whether you live or not.

If you don't live, you just don't keep that new knowledge long enough
for it to do you any good.
Tim Bruening
2017-05-04 05:52:16 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
The Doctor is chained to a chair as a Dwarf Star Alloy prison is built around him. He has been there long enough for his beard to grow. How does he go to the bathroom? (I saw no toilets in the prison).
The Doctor
2017-05-04 12:06:38 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
In article <00485ef7-763e-486b-8978-***@googlegroups.com>,
Tim Bruening <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>The Doctor is chained to a chair as a Dwarf Star Alloy prison is built
>around him. He has been there long enough for his beard to grow. How
>does he go to the bathroom? (I saw no toilets in the prison).


????
--
Member - Liberal International This is doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca Ici doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca
Yahweh, Queen & country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
http://www.fullyfollow.me/rootnl2k Look at Psalms 14 and 53 on Atheism
BC Keep your province Healthy!! Vote Liberal.
Tim Bruening
2017-05-04 21:09:09 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thursday, May 4, 2017 at 5:06:38 AM UTC-7, The Doctor wrote:
> In article <00485ef7-763e-486b-8978-***@googlegroups.com>,
> Tim Bruening <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> >The Doctor is chained to a chair as a Dwarf Star Alloy prison is built
> >around him. He has been there long enough for his beard to grow. How
> >does he go to the bathroom? (I saw no toilets in the prison).
>
>
> ????

How is the Doctor expected to reach a toilet if he's chained to a chair?
The Doctor
2017-04-13 12:12:41 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
In article <201dcde5-f05a-491e-99f1-***@googlegroups.com>,
Tim Bruening <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>Great moments: River Song diving out of a 15th floor window into the
>TARDIS swimming pool.
>
>Amy seeing a bunch of Silences on the ceiling. How do they stay on the
>ceiling?
>
>The Doctor's prison is made out of dwarf star alloy, which is extremely
>dense. Yet I think I saw two workmen lowering a large dwarf star allow
>brick into place by hand! How did they do that?

Must have been very careful.
--
Member - Liberal International This is doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca Ici doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca
Yahweh, Queen & country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
http://www.fullyfollow.me/rootnl2k Look at Psalms 14 and 53 on Atheism
BC Keep your province Healthy!! Vote Liberal.
Tim Bruening
2017-04-13 01:29:28 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Animals: Two stuffed bears and a stuffed rabbit in a room at the closed orphanage, which seems to contain a child.

A metal bird in Nixon's office.
Tim Bruening
2017-05-06 21:32:28 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Saturday, April 30, 2011 at 1:55:52 PM UTC-7, Agamemnon wrote:

>
> When did Nixon start taping all of his conversations in the Oval Office.
> Before or after the Doctor suggests it July 1969?

The Impossible Astronaut: Nixon replays a phone call from that girl.
Loading...